The Student Body fills the unique purpose of engaging discussion on health
and health policy issues on campus, as part of The Student Health Alliance
at Cornell (SHAC)’s broader mission. Original research is not necessary! Just
bring your enthusiasm and write about the health issues that make you tick!
The 2009-2010 Volume of The Student Body will be published three times per
semester; staff writers can expect to attend weekly meetings.
Email ajf83@cornell.edu to join our email list.

A Message from the President
SHAC is a pre-med and pre-health undergraduate student organization affiliated with Gannett. Our mission is to promote awareness and
discussion of health-related issues on the Cornell campus through
lectures, informal dialogue, and other public service events and activities. Our membership includes both aspiring health-careers students
as well as those students who are simply interested in current healthrelated issues. Previous events have consisted medical school panels
and peer mentoring, community service activities (e.g. canvassing for
Ithaca Free Clinic, making presentations on health-related topics at
local elementary schools, volunteering at local soup kitchens), partnership with other health-related organizations on campus to bring
The Student Body
in speakers and sponsor programs, and production and distribution
Editorial Board
of health publication, The Student Body.
During the 2009-2010 school year we hope to become more integrated with the other health related clubs on campus, through participation with the newly established Cornell Undergraduate Health
Cooperative, to further enhance discussion and awareness of student
health. Similarly, our goals involve reaching the greater Cor nell community through direct dialogue, via both increased production of our
publication and larger events. Furthermore, SHAC is unique in its
dynamic nature, allowing members to explore and pursue their own
ideas.
Although we elect primary positions such as President, Treasurer,
and Secretary, all are welcome to become involved with the executive
board in order to accomplish our mission and expand our reach to
the community. In the past, SHAC members have influenced campus
awareness of health issues, been involved in community service, and
most importantly, established a group of friends through common
interests.
Through all of the aforementioned goals and visions, we strive to
enrich Cornell’s campus as well as develop club members as campus
leaders. We always welcome those who are interested and we are
committed to helping you find the experience you’re looking for or
help you find a way to achieve your own goal and more.

Sincerely Yours,
Vinay Patel
SHAC President
2

Allison Ferreira- Editor-in-Chief
Sanchit Gupta- Senior Editor
Jessica Ye- Design Editor
SHAC is an undergraduate
student organization affiliated
with Gannett University Health
Services. Publication of The
Student Body is funded by SAFC.
The contents of The Student
Body are the works of the
authors and do not necessarily
reflect the views or beliefs of
SHAC, its affiliates, advisers, or
Cornell University.

ing about these exciting findings, Neitz said, “We
knew right away that it began to work. It was as if
they woke up and saw these colors.”

These miraculous results persisted even two
years after the opsin injections. In addition, Neitz
and his team reported that as time passed, the
protein had enhanced the monkeys’ vision by inBy Tommy Rucker creasing the intensity of colors that the monkeys
were already able to see, as much as 11-fold in the
hink about your average day: get out of bed, go case of certain hues.
to class, eat, do homework, go to bed, repeat.
Now, what if you had to take a couple of things out For those of you who are colorblind, please don’t
of this monotonous routine? No, not that looming go out and start poking needles into your eyes
prelim tomorrow or paper due next week! What any time soon. Neitz’s team has concluded that
about the colors red and green?
much more research will have to be done before
this procedure can be applied to humans.
In the United States, 3.5 million people suffer
from colorblindness,
In the Future...
which figures to about 1
Nevertheless, in addiin 87 people. Until now,
tion to helping colorthere has been little develblind individuals, these
opment in finding a cure
findings may open the
for this inherited vision
door to treating other
hindrance. The few cureye conditions, such
rent treatments available
as achromatopsia, a
have limited effectiveness.
disease that damages
One of the remedies on
the retinal cones and
the market for colorblindeven age-related vision
ness consists of a two-volt
degeneration.
electrical surge to the eye
muscles for 15 minutes,
So the next time that
three times a week. DeReproduced from thedeafblog.co.uk you are racing to camspite its high usage, this
to get to a class
“We knew right away that it pus
painful treatment does not
that started 10 minutes
have a high success rate.
ago, take a glance over

T

Cure for Colorblindness

4

began to work. It was as if they
woke up and saw these colors.”

A promising new “miracle”
treatment for the colorblind has recently developed in the unlikely form of two male squirrel
monkeys at the University of Washington-Seattle,
where Jay Neitz and his research group has made
the first plunge into finding cure for colorblindness by injecting a virus in the retinas of the two
moneys. Instead of containing genetic material
which would make the monkeys sick, the virus
was engineered to carry a gene coding for the
production of opsin, a protein that makes a pigment which can detect the colors red and green.
After five weeks, the two naturally colorblind
animals began to develop the ability to see colors
that had previously been invisible to them. Speak-

Libe Slope. Thanks to
modern science and
two U-Dub Monkeys,
that vibrant skyline is “under construction” for
the 1.1% of the students here at Cornell University who have never seen that sunset in all of its
multicolor splendor.
.

any of us have
grown up with limits on our chocolate consumption. Halloween candy mysteriously disappears after November 1, and certain schools refuse
to sell candy to their students. But is this mouthwatering treat really as bad as we think it is?
I always knew I would find an excuse to keep that
spare bar of Hershey’s chocolate in my microfridge and finally, I have. According to a recent
study published in the New York Times, people
who eat chocolate have increased survival rates
following a heart attack. In fact, the relationship is
correlated: the more chocolate you eat, the higher
your chances are for survival after a heart attack.
This correlation was also found with the risk
of dying from heart disease. There was a 27%
decrease in chance of cardiac death seen in those
who consumed chocolate once a month, 44% in
those who consumed chocolate once a week, and
66% for the chocoholics who ate chocolate twice
or more a week.
Before you drop everything and clear the candy
aisle at Noyes, be warned: the study had a few
flaws. First, it was an observational study, meaning an experimental and control group were not
previously selected. This precludes researchers from establishing a definite cause and affect
relationship. Second, the type of chocolate that

the patients consumed was not taken
into account. In addition to the differences in taste in a Snickers Bar and a
Hershey’s Dark Chocolate Bar, there
are varying nutritional benefits, particularly with regard to the antioxidants
found in dark chocolate. Antioxidants
help to protect the body from free radicals, which can damage cells and impair the immune system. Dark chocolate has an Oxygen Radical Absorbance
Capacity of 9080 units per serving
– blueberries have 8708 – while milk
chocolate only has 3200 units per serving. This difference is quite substantial
and should be considered if you decide
to start using chocolate as a second
lifeline of sorts. It should also be noted
that this study did not find that chocolate prevented heart attacks; it only
found that it helped patients in the
aftermath.

Although the thought of daily chocobinges may begin to sound tempting, keep in
mind that there’s a reason we have been taught
to consume chocolate in moderation. The government set serving size for hard candy is 40 grams.
A Hershey’s Dark Chocolate Bar is 41g, 180
calories, and contains 40% of your daily value of
saturated fat. Yes, the health benefits are there,
but don’t let your heart overrule your stomach:
this treat is fine once or twice a week, but if you
turn it into a daily indulgence you may find the
con’s outweigh the pro’s in the long run.
So go forth and eat chocolate!
Just do it in controlled amounts.

Reproduced from ps21.gov.sg

“the more chocolate you eat, the
higher your chances are for survival after a heart attack.”
5

Radiation

from cell phones and
other electronics pose health risks –
truth or myth?
By Diane Cheng
of damage, but some studies have indicated potentially significant and permanent health hazards. Findings suggest that after being exposed to
electromagnetic fields, cells showed a significant
increase in DNA damage, which could not always
be repaired by the cell and was also present in the
next generation of cells. Researchers indicate that
this DNA damage could lead to cancer and other
diseases, but the correlation between RF emission
and cancer has long been disputed by many leading research institution between RF emission and
cancer has long been disputed by many leading
research institutions, including The Journal of the
Reproduced from [1]
American Medical Association and the New England Journal of Medicine. Discovery Health online
lists cell phone radiation related cancer as number
8 of “top ten cancer myths,” and further states that,
n our high-tech world, cell phones have become “considerable research has also found no clear asindispensable. In an era when leaving your sociation between any other electronic consumer
phone at home for a day may cost you your sanity, products (such as microwaves) and cancer.”
your friendships, and even your job, the potential
Regardless, consumers have sued mobile
health hazards of being so
phone companies in
cell phone dependent may “...exposed to electromagnetic several recent and wellnot be of primary concern.
court cases,
fields, cells showed a signifi- publicized
Popular myths describe
citing radiation from cell
the dangers of cell phone cant increase in DNA damage, phone usage as the culuse, but just how damaging
for cancer in themwhich could not always be re- prit
are the effects of a phone’s
selves or loved ones.
paired by the cell...”
radiofrequency (RF) emisThough many of these
sions?
cases were dropped, the
As we carry on long conversations, phones headlines sparked public concerns over cell phone
become warmer because of the RF emission. While safety. In light of the increasing concerns, cell phone
cell phone radiation heats up body tissue, some- companies have taken a big step forward from the
times causing headaches and nausea, its effects traditional “no proof, no risk” stance. Many have
will not lead to any peradopted initiatives to
“...FDA
does
have
the
authority
manent damage. Howevaddress consumer coner, the lack of permanent to take action if cell phones are cerns, taking measures
damage does not imply
such as including radiashown
to
emit
hazardous
levels
a lack of side effects. Scition level information on
entists behind a 2004
their products, and thus
of RF radiation.”
European Union funded
allowing consumers to
study state that radiation from cell phones does select a phone on that criterion. Additionally, as
cause “alterations” to human DNA, even though cell phone quality improves, cell phone manufacsuch biological “changes” have not been proven turers assure us that the radiation emission will
to be a risk to human health or a cause of disease. gradually decrease.
Research looking at the effects of RF emission on
The Food and Drug Administration is not recells and DNA did not consistently find evidence quired by law to review the safety of radiation-

emitting consumer products such as cell phones
Ultimately, many scientists emphasize that
and similar wireless devices before they can be the data collected is far from conclusive, and that
sold. However, FDA does have the authority to take there is no need to panic. The lack of evidence,
action if cell phones are shown to emit hazardous
levels of RF radiation. In such a case, FDA could
“...as cell phone quality imrequire cell phone manufacturers to notify users
proves, cell phone manufacof the health hazard and to repair, replace or recall the phones so that the hazard no longer exists.
turers assure us that the radiSuch action has never been taken by the FDA.

ation emission will gradually
decrease.”

however, is not evidence in itself that cell phone
radiation poses no risk to our health. Perhaps because the explosion in electronic use is relatively
recent, not enough time has passed to assess the
full range of health effects or to collect evidence
for further studies. For people who are still suspicious about any possible health effects from cell
phones, the FDA Center for Devices and Radiological Health (CDRH) explain practical ways to minimize exposure to radio-frequency radiation without giving up cell-phone use, including hands-free
Motorola W385, #4 on the Top 10 Highest -radiation cell
kits and blue tooth head sets.
phones in the U.S. Photo by: Steven Gu
Photo References

ardiovascular disease, cancer and stroke are the leading
causes of death in the United States.
While technology has improved the
detection and treatment of these illnesses, natural remedies that have
existed for centuries might be useful in prevention. Cinnamon, garlic,
cumin, ginger, turmeric, and oregano are among many spices that not
only flavor our dishes, but could also
kick up quality of life when added to
a healthful diet.
Besides cinnamon’s psychologically pleasing associations with
comfort foods like apple pie, hard
candy and tea, research shows that
cinnamon also has profound health impacts. Traditionally, cinnamon’s antimicrobial properties were
its most valued: people used it for food preservation, preventing bad breath, and aiding digestion.
In addition, cinnamon also reduces inflammation in the body. Because inflammation initiates
most chronic diseases, decreasing inflammation
decreases one’s risk. Cinnamon also has anticlotting effects, which can decrease the risk of heart
attack or stroke. A 2007 study published in the
American Journal of Clinical Nutrition showed that
rice pudding spiced with cinnamon decreased the
rate of gastric emptying, leading to a slower rise in
blood glucose.
Garlic may deter not only vampires, but also
tumors, fungi and bacteria. The strong aroma of
garlic is characteristic of one of its compounds, allicin, which has direct antibacterial and antiviral
effects. Garlic is also rich in vitamin C, selenium
and B6, which are antioxidants and metabolic cofactors that can decrease risk of
cardiovascular disease. While
a 2007 study published in the
Archives of Internal Medicine did not find that garlic
reduced LDL cholesterol or
blood pressure, there was evidence that it may help deter
Reproduced from the hardening of the arteries
doh.sd.gov/diabetes/ by preventing the deposition
img/garlic.jpg
of “oxidized” LDL cholesterol
into the blood stream.
Ginger in candy, cookie, or savory form is especially good at treating nausea. It is commonly

recommended as a method to ameliorate gastrointestinal distress resulting from the side effects
of many drugs. While ginger has not been widely
researched, according to the National Center for
Complementary and Alternative Medicine, it may
help decrease congestion and joint pain by reducing inflammation.
Turmeric has a bold yellow color characteristic of mustard and curry. Research is underway
about its role in preventing Alzheimer’s, cancer,
and liver disorders, but turmeric has other significant health properties. For instance, the National
Center for Complementary and Alternative Medicine states that turmeric can be used topically to
treat eczema, or as an antiseptic to treat cuts. It
also aids in digestion and may relieve arthritis
pain.
Oregano, an herb with a warm flavor used in
Italian, Greek and Israeli cuisine has been used medicinally for many years. Hippocrates used oregano as an antiseptic, and its antioxidant and antimicrobial properties make it an excellent method
for food preservation, as it fights off the foodborne pathogen Listeria. According to the World’s
Healthiest Foods website, oregano is believed to
treat Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus Aureus
in some parts of the world.
Increased globalization of the food supply and
nutrition research continues to heighten awareness of the effects that natural compounds have
on the body. While alternative and complementary medical clinics are opening across the country,
knowledge of the interactions between traditional
and pharmaceutical medicines is vast and not as
well known. Thus, consult with a health care professional before beginning treatment with an herb
or supplement.

A possible new wonder Bydrug
may
be
found
on
your
teeth!
Yvonne Robles

W

hat do over eighty different types of diseas- as a way to reduce organic compounds and other
es, the thin film on your teeth, and the lining wastes in sewage. The biofilms digest these organof sewers have in common?
ic compounds as nourishment; one man’s waste is
All of them are linked to biofilms.
some bacteria’s favorite meal. Biofilms can, for
Biofilms are essentially masses of bacteria example, be engineered to digest a variety of conthat have changed their phenotypes (the set of taminants, and treatments may be developed to
traits they express) to form a matrix of extracellu- successfully remove corrosive or antibiotic resislar “goo” which consists of a jumble of DNA, poly- tant films. Using engineered biofilms could be an
saccharides, cellulose, and other components from inexpensive way to better clean our water without
the bacteria. The matrix formed by the bacteria is the use of added chemicals and machinery that are
advantageous for them; most biofilms are antibiot- harmful to the environment.
ic resistant and the extracellular “goo” protects the
Rapid advances in research, including recent
bacteria from unfavordevelopments on the
able environments, alCornell campus, have
lowing it to grow in less
indicated the possibilmoisture and nutrients
ity of manipulating biothan just as lone bactefilm to eliminate or use
ria cells. Think of it as
them as an advantage in
the bacterial version of
everything from uses in
a Megazord from Power
medicine to the environRangers.
ment. Primarily through
These adaptations
genetic recombination
allow biofilms to have
techniques,
different
starring roles in infecgenes
have
already
been
Reproduced from blog.usa.gov
tions and diseases such
shown to be positive or
“one
man’s
waste
is
some
bacas urinary tract infecnegative regulators of
tions, cystic fibrosis,
curli, fiber-like growths
teria’s favorite meal”
middle-ear
infections,
on the outer membrane
and gingivitis. Similarly,
of some bacteria that annearly 20% of the corrochor biofilms to surfaces
sion in pipes, boats and
and are accepted to be
the like are caused by
directly related to biomicrobes and biofilms.
film formation. ControlThis includes things such
ling the actual growth of
as oil pipelines, leading
biofilms is an important
to the waste of valuable
step towards engineerpetroleum products being biofilms for specific
cause a layer of microoruses.
Reproduced from ares.jsc.nasa.gov
ganisms ate away at the
Nonetheless,
biopipes they are transportfilms are still an unexed through.
plored frontier in Biology.
Finding a way to use biofilms to our advan- Scientists are still unsure about what environmentage could eliminate or better treat these prob- tal cues promote the production of biofilm, some
lems. Similarly, the obstacle of antibiotic resis- of its properties, and the extent of its role in some
tance of pathogens can be resolved by the control bacterial infections. But controlling these growths
of biofilms; this may be what replaces the increas- offers the promise of being able to regulate these
ingly ineffective wonder drug Penicillin when the films that are present in our everyday lives could
bacteria it currently fights someday becomes too lead to a less wasteful, disease-free, cleaner world.
strong for it.
Who wouldn’t want the mighty Megazord on
People are already using wild type biofilms their side?

9

HYGIENE: Hype or Hope?
By Nicholas Cordero

FLUSH…footsteps.
“Hey, do you want to get
something to eat?”

S

10

omething was missing in this
exchange: it was the sound of
running water that I had grown
all too familiar with, having suffered from OCD in my childhood
and owing an almost too-soft pair
of hands to hours spent soaping
and scrubbing away at the germ
that were stupid enough to take
refuge there. While I admit that
I was excessive as a child, even
a little rinse is better than not
washing at all. The act of hand
washing has both hygienic and
religious roots. Ritual hand washing is performed in many major Religions, be it the lavabo of
Christianity or the wudu of Islam;
it exists as a method of cleansing
oneself. The hygienic implications are the same: the microbiologists Kampf and Kramer state
that about two million infections
occur in hospitals every year in
the United States due to slacking
with hand washing. There are a
variety of reasons to wash one’s
hands. First, it is the polite thing
to do. We don’t take other people
into the bathroom with us, so
why should we take the bathroom
out to them? Second, it stops the
spread of disease, whether from
the bathroom or from coughing,
sneezing, and touching shared
objects. While you may be immune to your germs because they
were in your body, others may
not be; that handshake you share
with a friend and that dinner you
prepare for a mate could be giving
them a bit more than your love.
My personal favorite reason for
scrubbing up is that hand wash-

ing prevents the occurrence of a
little disease called “necrotizing
fasciitis.”
What is the proper technique of hand washing? To start,
the main ingredients are running
water, soap, a clean towel, and
patience. First, douse hands with
clean, running water and apply
soap. The soap needn’t be antibacterial, as the Kampf and Kramer demonstrated that antibacterial soaps are no more effective at
killing bacteria than unmedicated
soaps are. In fact, some bacteria
have even grown resistant to the
antimicrobial chemicals in these
soaps, making them even less effective than normal soaps. Once
soap has been applied, lather
up for at least 20 seconds. Then,
rinse off and dry hands with a
clean towel. For extra credit, you
can then apply a moisturizing lotion to your hands to counter the
drying effect of washing. Partial
credit is awarded for replacing
all of these steps with an alcoholbased hand sanitizer, which is almost as effective as soap and water but takes much less time.
Easy, huh? Indeed, one of
the reasons why America is not
plagued today by epidemics is because of public health advances
centered on contagion in the late
1800s and early 1900s, but handwashing can still help control the
spread of illness. But don’t overdo it like I did as a kid: a study
by Bloomfield et al. shows that a
little bit of eaten dirt can greatly
boost a child’s immune system.
But walking across the tightrope
between clean and too clean is
much safer than the dental-floss
sized line between clean and
dirty.

not taken chemistry, polar molecules
are attracted to polar molecules while
non-polar molecules are attracted to
non-polar molecules. In a soap molecule, then, the non-polar group is attracted to the oil and dirt on skin, while
the polar group is attracted to the water
molecules. When you rinse off soap, the
soap molecules are washed away with
whatever the non-polar groups were
attracted to on your skin. Unlike hand
sanitizers, soap does not necessarily kill
germs, but it gets rid of them down the
drain.
To use it most effectively, wet hands
first, rub and lather for 20 seconds, rinse
while still rubbing, and dry hands.

I

Photograph by Jessica Ye

’ve always hated hand sanitizers. They seemed
like a sham created by companies to make money. “Kills 99.99% of all germs!”—as if. “Moisturizes
hands and keeps them soft!”—yeah right, after
peeling away a layer of skin. While others squeeze
a blob of gel into their hands, I prefer good ol’ soap
and water. However, in these germ-ridden days,
hand sanitizers are everywhere. Since I cannot
avoid thinking about them, I decided to once and
for all find out the truth about these two methods
of cleaning hands.

How hand sanitizer works

Hand sanitizers have a distinctive, sweet smell—
that’s the alcohol. Alcohol kills bacteria because
it changes the shape of proteins, thereby making them non-functional and effectively killing
the germs in the process. The most effective
hand sanitizers are 60-95% alcohol-based. Also,
when alcohol is rubbed onto hands, it evaporates
quickly, taking away with it the outer layer of oil
on skin as well as the germs that were on it. Some
hand sanitizers are made with aloe and vitamin E
to replace lost moisture.
To use it most effectively, rub a dime-sized
drop of gel between your hands for 30 seconds. If
your hands are dry in only 20 seconds, you didn’t
use enough gel.

How soap works

Soap is made of molecules that have both a polar
group and a non-polar group. For those who have

The debate: Hand sanitizer vs.
Soap and water

Knowing about how the methods work
convinces me that they are both valid.
However, there is one important difference between them: hand sanitizers can only remove bacteria, while soap and water can remove bacteria
and dirt and grime. When your hands are wet or
visibly dirty with food or dirt, use soap and water.
In fact, the gel is hardly effective at all in these
conditions. (You’d better hope that those working
at Okenshield’s and Trillium are not keeping their
hands clean by only using hand sanitizer!)
With regard to bacteria only, however, research shows that hand sanitizers are actually
more effective than soap and water in eliminating
the microorganisms. However, most of the bacteria
they kill are not harmful to humans anyway. As for
the H1N1 virus, both methods are equally effective
according to a study done in Australia. Researchers spread the virus over the hands of 20 volunteers. If the volunteers did not clean their hands,
then some viruses were still found alive after one
hour. As soon as they did clean their hands—either
way—almost all the viruses were eliminated.
It turns out that hand sanitizers are not a
total sham after all. Still, I was right to doubt the
“Removes 99.99% of all germs!” claim. Companies
get these results by testing their hand sanitizers
on smooth surfaces, not human hands. No matter
which method you use, the important thing is to
simply try to keep your hands as clean as possible.
Maybe now I will buy a bottle of hand sanitizer for
when soap and water are not available.
11

T

12

Reproduced from bloomington.in.gov

he Statler’s Terrace Café, most known for its
comprehensive salad bar and excellent service, often comes to mind for many students when
considering a place to grab a bite on campus. Students hurry down the salad line, watching their
selections being quickly tossed together , and
emptied into a box, and think nothing of tossing
out the stray Chinese noodle, carrot shred, or almond sliver that has mistakenly ended up in their
possession. However, this is a cause for concern
for students who help comprise the 3.7 percent of
the U.S. adult population afflicted with a food allergy. Despite meticulous labeling on commercially
sold food products and on selected items in dining halls, mass-prepared foods in many venues are
unlikely to have labels and are even less likely to
be meticulously separated from possible contaminants.
Food allergy causes about 30,000 episodes
of anaphylaxis and 100 to 200 deaths per year in
the U.S., and accounts for between 35 and 50 percent of hospital visits. Although the prevalence of
food allergies is higher in children under 4 than
in the adult population, life-threatening reactions
to food allergies occur most often in adolescents
and young adults. These reactions are most often
caused by peanuts and tree nuts, which are often

found in areas where cross-contamination of ingredients is the greatest, such as salad bars or stirfry stations.
College students are forced to endure the psychological effects resulting from the risk of death
and social isolation during eating events. Emotional stress, like that brought about by spending
several years at Cornell, has been shown to increase the severity of allergic reactions. Furthermore, CNN Health Reports recently found that 83
percent of people with seasonal allergies reported
that their allergies affected sexual activities. Although those afflicted with food allergies are not
sneezing or coughing, their sexual lives may be impaired by their fear of contact or inability to dine
with their peers.
However, recent clinical trials have shown
promise for effectively desensitizing children to
food allergens further than allergy shots. Oral
immunotherapy and sublingual immunotherapy
have been introduced to build up a child’s tolerance to an allergen. These therapeutic methods involve introducing trace amounts of the food, either
by ingestion or by placing it under the tongue to be
absorbed through the membranes of the mouth.
Children who do not react, or who are able to endure the reaction are given increasing doses of the
allergen over time, with the hopes of eventual desensitization.
A spokesperson from the American Academy
of Allergy, Asthma, and Immunology indicated that
the results from several recent trials are promising, but it is important to keep in mind that these
results are preliminary and may not be applicable
to everyone. Most importantly, these trials should
only be conducted in a clinical setting under the
care of a medical professional. In other words, do
not try this at home.
Although these trials promise an optimistic
future for people afflicted with food allergies, the
need for such a desperate, high-risk treatment
method brings to light the question of why we have
seen such a rise in the prevalence of anaphylactic
food allergies in the last few decades. From 1997
to 2007, the prevalence of reported food allergy
increased by 18 percent among children under age
18 in the U.S. and 4 million Americans currently
have food allergies. If this rise in the prevalence of
severe allergies is due to our eradication of more
potent bacterial and viral pathogens in our environment, as some suggest, then what environmental hazards will we be exposing ourselves to next
by reducing our susceptibility to food allergens?